IMO A is right.

The author concluded that violence was the result of freakish weather conditions using the above mentioned series of suppositions, without any evidence. Hence A is most debatable option.
_________________

It is given that that it is probable,but nothing is mentioned about what happened actually.Highlighed the portion that maybe useful to arrive at D.

Imo D


The the conclusion is based upon consequences of some probable event. So to undermine the this argument we have to show that the probable event did not occur or some other event occurred.
D questions that the there not certainty that such an even might have occurred and thus this choice undermine the contention.

In my opinion B ,
A says contemporary( present time) evidence ...doesn't make much sense here

B for me as well. Author is mixing between cause and effect.

Here two incidents are given..
1. Unusual violence in five years...
2. In same five year, weather pattern disturbance.

Conclusion.
1 leads to 2

B correctly address the concern in stimulus as author has not clearly mentioned cause and effect. These two events can be correlated.

IMO D.

The author says that the consumption of the infected grain CAN cause ergotism, but did it really cause and if it did then what proportion of the population was effected-no information is given on these points. Hence, in the absence of the said information, one can only conclude that the consumption of the infected grain MIGHT have been the reason for violence.

Please help me understand difference b/w options A and D?

(A)Author's assumption is based on "plausible suppositions" rather than "contemporary evidence".
(D)The author assumption makes no distinction between "probable occurrence" and "actual occurrence".
How is "not giving actual occurrence" diff. from "not having actual evidence"??

If you see (A) says the assumption should be made on contemporary evidence i.e., evidence from the current period.
(D) on the other hand says the assumption should have been based on the actual occurrence which the author doesn't talk about.

(A) is wrong for that reason.Hope its clear.

As per google "contemporary" is an adjective. Meaning :
1.living or occurring at the same time.
2. belonging to or occurring in the present.
Example: "the event was recorded by a contemporary historian"
Accordingly, A states "Author's assumption is based on plausible suppositions rather than evidences of past (when the event occured) time." Is my understand for use of "contemporary" incorrect. Please Help.

Hello Bunuel,

How can we eliminate option B.
As per my understanding there is no clear cut relation mentioned for cause and effect.
So, if someone argues on the point, then the conclusion falls apart.

Please explain why it is not B.
Here two correlated events are mentioned in same time duration. I agree that D is equally correct but not getting why B is incorrect.

Can you post the official explanation of this please?

Pre-thinking:

Conclusion: The violence in the medieval village was the result of freakish weather conditions.

Premises on which the conclusion is based:

i) The period of violence coincided with heavy rainfall in the area.
ii) Wheat crop could have been infected with ergot fungus.
iii) Eating ergot infected wheat could cause hallucinations or have other psychological side effects.

On first reading, the big problem that first jumps out are the two "could"s that are in the premises on which the conclusion is based. The wheat crop could have been infected - however, it is possible that such infection did not happen. Similarly, eating such infected wheat could cause hallucinations - then again, it is possible that the infected wheat crop did not produce any such effects.

The premises do not specify how probable the two "could"s are. Basis this thinking, let us assess the options.

(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence. This is an attractive option at first glance. It is true that the reasoning is based on some suppositions (assumptions, for eg, that the crop was infected and the infected wheat did cause hallucinations etc.). My problem is with the second part of this option - "rather than contemporary evidence".

In this context, I take "contemporary" to mean "occurring at the same time" or "contemporaneous", rather than belonging to the present time. I do this because this makes the option harder to rule out, since it is not necessary to use evidence from the present to arrive at this conclusion - we could also use evidence from the past. However, a reading of the passage makes it clear that contemporary evidence has been used. For instance, data about historical rainfall appears to have been used - clearly evidence from the period in question.

Therefore, not using contemporary evidence is not a criticism that can be leveled at this argument. However, at this point, we can hold on to this option.

(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect. Incorrect. The final statement makes it clear that causes and effect are clearly distinguished.

(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational. Again, an interesting option at first glance. However, this appears to be a very sweeping, generalized comment. Can we be sure that no historical events can be explained in a way that allows for chance to play a role? Unlikely to be the correct answer.

(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence. This appears to be the best option till now. The author does appear to have considered "probable" events (such as the infection and the hallucinations) to have "actually occurred".

(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event. Incorrect. Since the thrust of the argument is on the cause of the violence, we do not require a precise definition of the effect ie; "unusual violence", in order to make an argument about its probable reasons. Additionally, the result of the violence has been reasonably established - "nearly wiping out the population".

Hope this helps.
_________________